No, you did not claim otherwise, I didn’t mean to give that impression. Only to clarify why I don’t believe the beatification of the previous Pope is a good thing at this time in light of the controversies. WWII has been over now for more than sixty years and that era’s Popes’s actions and motivations are still being debated.
As we have discussed, the miracle has been proven to the pope’s satisfaction. The miracle took place now. Do we ask God to wait?
So regarding the Pope’s beatification, I am again disconcerted because of the speed at which it is being done. Before Pope JP II the Church took a long time, something like 50 to 100 years to beatify a saint. How many Popes have come and gone and left this practice intact. Then JP II decided to change the rules and speed up the process. Yet we must trust the leadership of the Pope and have faith that the Holy Spirit guides him. So no matter how I feel I put my faith in God and can accept the beatification of JP II despite the scant amount of time for consideration.
John Paul did not change the policies for canonization. He did three things to speed up the process. 1) He introduced modern technology into the process. In the old days everything had to be done in person and everything had to be done in handwriting. Today, the committee members can communicate via email, telephone, faxes, web-conferences. 2) He reduced the number of miracles from three to two. This number is arbitrary. The three miracles were introduced in 1917. I don’t remember what they were before then. In the 1200s they required five miracles and no pope every followed that rule. That’s why it was dropped. 3) John Paul demanded that alleged miracles be investigated promptly and not put on the back burner. He demanded that they either be proven or dismissed, but he did not allow stalling. This was a problem of the old Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. They stalled and were very disorganized.
As someone else stated, I have never heard of St Francis using the Koran as a teaching tool or calling the words within it “holy”. Do you happen to have a source for this? Besides, I still think quoting things that are inline with Catholic teaching is a lot different than kissing the book as a whole. I don’t have a problem with pointing out any similarities between our religions. However, according to Catholic teaching, there was no new revelation after the apostles; therefore, the Koran is not God’s word. When the leader of the Catholic Church kisses it, it gives the impression that it is.
We, the Franciscans are the proof that you want. We’re talking about our founding father. What we know, we know because our earliest brothers, especially Brother Illuminato, who went to Egypt with Francis wrote about it in his journals now in the Franciscan Archives at the Motherhouse in Assisi.
Francis called holy words in the Koran that reflect Truth. Truth is found in many places and in many writings. Do not confuse this with the subsistence of truth. The fullness of Truth subsists only in the Catholic Church. The key word here is “fullness”. The Church has never said that some Truth cannot be found in other faiths. Much of what the Koran says about Mary is what we Catholics have believed long before the founding of Islam. What the Koran says about charity, marriage, fidelity, prayer, judgment, sin, heaven and hell and the 10 Commandments are the same things that Christians and Jews believe. These words are holy, regardless of what book you find them in.
When Francis went to Egypt he saw it practiced by the Muslims. He came back and commented how we Christians should be ashamed that the Infadels knew how to be humble and we had forgotten the true meaning of humility. He then proceed to write his famous admonition of absolute obedience, without questioning, even when authority is wrong, because it is pleasing to God and man. The only time that one may disobey is when commanded to commit an action that the Church has identified as a sin.
I know that I am out of line, but this rushing to make Popes saints troubles me. Pope John Paul II was a courageous man and he certainly was a kind soul who traveled far and wide to promote the faith. However, I personally would wait much longer before declaring him a saint. To begin with, I view him as not altogether a positive force within the Church. I have been influenced by the column of Fr. McBrien of Notre Dame whose column has appeared for years in our local paper. Fr. McBrien has charged that JPII fortified the ‘old guard’ within the Church by appointing very conservative men as Bishops. I also have some doubts about what appears to be his theology - also very conservative. I believe in a ‘big tent’ church where reasonable people are permitted to disagree,
Code:
It seems to me that this process of making saints is questionable. Two miracles. Many people of other or of no religious faith recover from terminal situations which may or may not be miracles. I recall how Fr. Padre Pio was canonized in modern times. What had he done? He bilocated, levitated and all sorts of other amazing feats. Sorry, but this can make people like me question the whole process. It can make assertions that are out of tune with the world today, which dismisses such things as superstition. I know we don't want to hear this, but that's the response of much of the world.
The Church does not make saints. The Church simply proclaims to the world what God has done. If God performs a miracle through the intercession of a saint and it can be proven, the Church has a duty to proclaim it. It would be unjust to God, the saint and the people of God to keep the Glory of God hidden under a bushel.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
